Guidelines, scientific dogmatism, biased thinking…

Picture-59

The BBC has to adopt “clear editorial guidelines” for its reporting on the issue of climate change, MPs have said.
The Science and Technology Committee said the organisation played a “central” role in informing the public.
But some editors were “poor” at determining viewers’ and listeners’ level of expertise and sometimes pitted lobbyists against “top scientists” as if their views had “equal weight”. The BBC said it did “not believe in erasing wider viewpoints”. In its report, the committee said news teams, including those on Radio 4’s Today programme, had committed the mistake of attributing the same weight to opinions and scientific fact when covering climate science. (1)

Science is the new religion.

And no one can doubt it. (even though there are numerous counter-arguments for the human-made climate change – search Harmonia Philosophica with “ecology” or the “against ecology” tag)

We live in an era of dogmatism.
We MUST believe in science!
Because science tells the FACTS!

We have forgotten that science merely offers interpretation models.
We have forgotten that the facts are only visions inside our mind.
We have chosen to forget philosophy.

We have become followers.
We have stopped being Thinkers.

Let’s get back to where we were!
Let’s start being children again…

WWII, conspiracies, UK and Nazis…

When I was a kid, I was fascinated by World War 2.

And I was even more fascinated by the various mysteries surrounding the great war.

Why did Hitler stop at Dunkirk?

Why did Hess fly to Britain?

Why did Hitler not invade UK?

The truth is most of the times right in front of your eyes. All you have to do is simply stare it in the eyes. If you have the courage to do so.

The truth is that…

Britain has had Nazi lovers in parliament or in high political places for a long time. From Nancy Astor (1) to Oswald Mosley (2) to Edward VIII (3, 4), to many other lords and dukes  (5), the long list of British fascist parties (6) and even current Member of Parliament with Nazi affiliations (7, 8, 9) shows how the ideology of Hitler was not contained to Germany alone as they want us to believe.

The British National Government’s basic line of close collaboration with Nazi Germany was a fact only a few days before the war, despite the rising differences and points of antagonism in a number of spheres of policy. (10) As one can read in the “International Press Correspondence, Volume 15, no 23, 1 June 1935”, after Hitler gave a major speech on foreign policy to the Reichstag on 21 May 1935, Baldwin, speaking officially for the British government, paid a tribute of welcome to the pronouncement and promised ‘the very closest attention in a spirit of sympathy’. The Times found it ‘reasonable and straightforward… the basis of a complete settlement’. The Daily Herald, of course, was foremost in welcoming Hitler’s speech as ‘a good basis… it is now for Great Britain to reply in the same spirit’. The Daily Mail found Hitler’s speech the height of European statesmanship.

Was Hess a lone “mad man” who just decided to go to Britain for… vacation? Could the no. 2 in 3rd Reich’s hierarchy just leave without Hitler knowing about it? Could he go into “enemy” territory without being sure that they will welcome him? Could someone be so STUPID so as to really ask such questions? (11)

The simple truth is that by the beginning of 1941 Hitler, in disregard of the advice of some of his generals, had decided that he could no longer put off his “holy war” against Russia. The attempt to knock out the Western democracies before turning to the East had failed. The alternative was an understanding with Great Britain which would leave Germany free to concentrate everything against Russia-a return, in some measure, to the basis of co-operation set up in Munich (12). Whatever Chamberlain and Daladier may have thought, the Germans had interpreted the Munich deal as a carte blanche for Nazi domination of Eastern Europe. The Allied guarantees to Poland and Rumania thereafter and their declaration of war, were indignantly denounced in Berlin as a democratic double-cross. (13)

And yes, Hess had RAF escort during his flight over Britain. (13)

Even today you can see dictators and Nazi-lovers at royal weddings. Yes, this is not something which has passed away. This is something we live in. They are the same people (Prince Philip) who hope to be reincarnated as a deadly virus” to help solve the population problem. (14) They are the same people who are pro-eugenics and true “ecologists”. (15)

Hitler stopped at Dunkerk so as to leave his British friends a chance.

Hitler sent Hess on a peace mission in agreement with his British friends.

Hitler did not invade UK because you do not invade friends. (and not because it was difficult, Hitler had gone even to Africa or the far end of Atlantic)

Hitler’s ideology had support from many people short before and even during World War II. An annoying truth which many people try to hide today. Could Hitler be just ONE example OUT OF THE MANY in his days? Could his evil not be so unique as some people want us to believe? No one could rise in power in any state in such a “closed” continent and done the things he done (concentration camps in Germany existing well BEFORE the war and everyone knew about it – unless they believe fairies took communists and other “disturbing elements” during the night for a walk in the forest) without the consent of all the great powers of the time.

Prince Harry can have Nazi uniforms (16, 17) but who cares?

Princess Michael’s father, Baron Gunther von Reibnitz, can go into US restaurants and talk against black people making noise next to his table telling them “Go back to the colonies” (18) but who cares?

Royals, dukes, lords, MPs…

The cycle of hypocrisy does not end.

Watching too many Hitler documentaries at Discovery Channel has turned our minds into pulp.

The dirtiest places, have the cleanest carpets…

Vaccines: Parents should decide on their own. [not Science!] (obvious?!?)

Whooping cough has turned up in North America after decades of near absence. Caused by the Bordetella pertussis bacterium, whooping cough is emerging from the shadows in response to a fateful switch of vaccines embraced in the 1990s, just when it seemed the disease was licked. The vaccine used today (acellular pertussis vaccine) has proved less potent than its predecessor (whole-cell vaccine). (do not forget to read the analysis of Wallace about how vaccines DID not play a role in the decrease of deaths in modern society, but that rather simple inventions like the sewage systems played that role – see “Conspiracy of the vaccines” here)

The whole-cell vaccine offers up the full pertussis bacterium, bristling with scores of proteins that our bodies recognize as foreign and build an immune response against. The resulting all-hands-on-deck response engenders immune memory that will awaken when faced with a live pertussis bacterium, even years later.

But the whole-cell vaccine’s rampant immune reaction carries a downside. Babies commonly run fevers, get agitated and feel pain at the injection site. “Those babies are really unhappy,” says James Cherry, a semiretired infectious disease physician at the UCLA School of Medicine.

Harsher reactions can occur, too. Among more than 15,000 babies included in a 1981 analysis by Cherry and his colleagues, nine developed seizures shortly after an injection and nine others had an episode of listlessness. None of the babies showed long-term effects from these episodes, but such events are alarming for parents, Cherry says.

On top of that, the whole-cell pertussis vaccine was dogged by allegations that it might cause encephalopathy, which carries the risk of brain damage. Starting in 1946, anecdotal cases dribbled in that seemed to link encephalopathy in babies with the whole-cell vaccine. But a 1983 analysis of 33 cases found no connection.

So a search began for an alternative vaccine that didn’t use a whole cell. Public health officials endorsed the goal, and pharmaceutical companies developed acellular — meaning no cell — vaccines that contain up to five of the antigens found on the pertussis bacterium. Fewer antigens would still trigger immunity, scientists figured, with fewer side effects. (1)

This lead to a public backlash against this vaccine. (2)

Is this madness?

Is this biased prejudice against science?

Are some people just willing to risk the life of their kids?

But there are reports which link the vaccine with encephalopathy. (3)

There are mild side-effects reported for the “stronger” vaccine. (4, 5, 6)

There are also serious neurological disorders reported following whole-cell pertussis in comparison to acellular pertussis vaccines. (“Our results, and conclusions by the US Institute of Medicine, suggest an association between serious neurological disorders and whole-cell pertussis immunization.”) (7)

And this is not limited to this vaccine.

Scientists search for complications which include autism (measles vaccine), multiple sclerosis (hepatitis B vaccine), meningoencephalitis (Japanese encephalitis vaccine), Guillain‐Barré syndrome and giant cell arteritis (influenza vaccine), and reactions after exposure to animal rabies vaccine. (8)

The results show some complications. The risk is zero or minimal related to the risk for the disease. But in some cases it IS existent. But no matter what the case is, one should have the right to know and decide on his own. And only a parent should decide if the risk for encephalitis is minimal. Even if it is 1 in 1,000,000 it is still too much if you are that 1 case…

Too bad you must pay $60 to buy the article.

It would be logical to have such safety-related information free for the public good.

Right?

(and note that we are talking about an article of 2002, not cutting edge research…)

No matter how good science is, the decision should be left on the parents to make!

And the complications do not end here.

As scientists claim in an article for example, “Real evaluation of any vaccine can only be done after the vaccine has been in routine use for a substantially long period of time” (9). So we test vaccines on humans?

And yes, new research shows that some side-effects might not be related to the vaccines. See here for example. This research claims that “New evidence emerged in 2006 showing that cases of alleged ‘vaccine encephalopathy’ are due to mutations within a sodium channel gene. The weight of epidemiological evidence does not support a relationship between vaccination and childhood epileptic encephalopathies or autism spectrum disorders”. But this research does not nullify the results of the previous researches which showed a correlation between vaccinations and autism. Finding a gene responsible for a disease does not answer the question why it is more likely for a kind which was vaccinated to get the disease! We should be really careful at what we think we prove.

The National Childhood Encephalopathy Study (NCES), conducted in the United Kingdom from 1976 to 1979, suggested the possibility of a relationship between the vaccine and encephalopathy. Methodologic problems with this study were quickly highlighted.(10) Funny how such problems are not-so-quickly highlighted in pharmaceutical companies-funded researches which based on minimal number of cases celebrate the “success” of new vaccines.

As I said above, there are researches which show that some risks DO exist for vaccines. There are small but they do exist! Should we ignore them? Should we put them under the mat because some OTHER researches did not find this correlation? Is that logical? Is that scientific? Is that ethical?

Another research shows small correlation between DTP vaccine and encephalopathy. [OR = 1.22] (11) Is that chance low? How low should a possibility be in order for a parent to decide? Would you decide to do something if it could result to the death of someone loved even at a 1 to 10,000,000 chances?

I am not against vaccination.

I personally was vaccinated.

I will vaccinate my children.

But I decided that based on all the facts!

I DECIDED THAT!

If you do not have the money and the time to search this matter, then be sure that OTHERS WILL DECIDE FOR YOU! And this is the worst thing of them all: Science in the dress of religion, telling people what to do without letting them make up their own mind.

Related articles

Global Thermonuclear War: It has ALREADY happened! (tip: it was called “testing”)

We are taught to be afraid of Chernobyl…

We are taught to be glad Kennedy saved the world…

But should we be afraid of Chernobyl?

Should we be glad that Kennedy “saved the world”?

Would it be the first time we are taught wrong?

We are all (or at least were) afraid of a nuclear holocaust. We we terrified of a nuclear war and the effects it might have on us and on Earth.

But wait a minute!

Didn’t that ALREADY HAPPEN?

Let me explain with a different story…

It is about a painting and how it was analyzed by experts to finally find that it was a fake (expect a future post on Harmonia Philosophica on 27/2/2014 about that even from a philosophical point of view).

How did they do it?

Simple: Scientists determined a painting is fake due to the C-14 in its canvas.

Carbon 14 is a radioactive variation of carbon, and because plants pick up both types through photosynthesis, all living organisms — cotton plants included — have the same ratio of carbon 14 to stable carbon as the atmosphere. But a series of nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s spiked this normally consistent ratio.

“After 1955 the level of radiocarbon in the atmosphere, and thus in living organisms, almost doubled in about 10 years,” Pier Andrea Mandò, head of the Florence division of the INFN, explained in a statement. (1)

See?

Not yet?

Think again: How many nuclear bombs would fall in the event of a global thermonuclear war? (not a random choice of words, for the ones who are “good movies”-literate)

10?

40?

100?

500?

Maybe 500 is too much. After the initial dozen bombs there would be noone left to through more bombs anyway… right?

Now do you want to know how many nuclear bombs were detonated by “advanced” nations on the planet during Cold War (source) ?

  • US: 1,149
  • USSR: 969
  • UK: 45
  • France: 210
  • China: 45
  • India: 6
  • Pakistan: 7
  • Israel: ? (> 1)
  • North Korea: 3
  • TOTAL: 2435

And let’s not forget the TWO BOMBS that fell on Japan during WWII (and maybe a small failed nuclear test by the Nazis?)

Now think again!

Are you really afraid of nuclear war?

Or are you part of the aftermath?

And they had you believe that YOU destroyed the ozone layer by… spraying!

Or that cancer has started spiking due to… well, nothing. (it actually took years for the UK to recognize illness effects on veterans due to nuclear tests – see here)

Most of the times the truth is hovering in front of you. And then it suddenly detonates on your face in a huge flash leaving you no chance to even notice it was there…

Conspiracies for Fun are serious sometimes.

Science, Scientists, Propaganda.

In the northernmost reaches of the Canadian Arctic, 500 miles (800 kilometers) away from the nearest human settlement, researchers discovered a literal message in a bottle, Halifax’s Herald News reports.

It begins just like the worst examples of cover letters on the Internet: “TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN”. But the rest of it is pretty awesome. It turns out it’s a note buried by Paul Walker, an American geologist well known to those in his field today. (1)

Every field needs its heroes. And so does science. From the fake story of the “But it moves!” supposedly said by Galileo, to a story of a lost letter in a bottle by a “stranded ice explorer” (well, the truth is that he had a stroke, his partners returned him safely back and he died later in his parents’ house – with the letter having nothing to do with the whole story) over-exaggerating events for the sake of marketing is more and more in the agenda.

The simple story of a carpenter who died for his love of people does not sell much nowadays…

Related articles

Exit mobile version
%%footer%%